Update tree-sitter Ginkgo in Ashland, Oregon

PMDavis nospampmdlandarch at earthlink.net
Fri Dec 1 12:06:53 EST 2000


Yes, for all practical purposes they are considered "native" for public
adminstrative purposes.  There is, of course, no reliable records of those
introductions, but there is 1.  knowledge that certain plants were
cultivated by native Americans
2.  genetic comparison with populations from other geographic regions
(Mexico, Central America and other regions of North America)
where human transport seems to be the most reasonable explaination for the
distribution patterns.
3.  The greatest impacts to the natural ecosystems (that concern us most)
have occured within the recent 500 years.

Keep in mind that public policy and good science don't always agree.  But
that seems to be the most pragmatic way to handle it.





Roger Whitehead wrote in message ...
>In article <lpzV5.32297$nh5.2066879 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
PMDavis
>wrote:
>> For purposes of convenience, a clearly arbitrary date of "time of
permanent
>> white settlement" which would be about 1503 was adopted by both the State
of
>> Florida Legislature, and the Florida Native Plant Society.
>
>So, does this mean that those species that were introduced by earlier
>'non-white' settlers treated as native? That was less than 500 years ago.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Roger Whitehead,
>Oxted, Surrey, England
>
>









More information about the Plant-ed mailing list